Defence Forces Review 2010

Mission Command: The Command Panacea?framework to analyse C2. They begin by offering a new definition, one that “emphasizesthe critical role of command [that is, human will] while acknowledging . . . control [that is,technology].” 9 Liddy 10 concurs and observes that technological advancements have led toflattened command structures, requiring new doctrine, allowing soldiers to assume greaterresponsibility on the multi-dimensional 21 st century battle space. McCann and Pigeau definecommand as “the authoritative and responsible expression of creative human will for theattainment of the mission,” and control as “the application of structure and process for thepurpose of bounding the mission’s problem space.” In developing and advancing their newframework, they posit their own definition of C2 as “the establishment of common intent toachieve co-ordinated action.” 11The Concept of IntentThe concept of intent (Figure 2) is critical to McCann and Pigeau’s definition of C2 and itssubsequent analysis. Having re-defined C2, they analyse intent under two facets: explicit (orpublic) intent, and implicit (or personal) intent. A commander’s explicit intent (Figure 2)represents the tip of the iceberg and contains “a vast network of additional (implicit) intentsthat inevitably qualify it.” The authors emphasise that an “individual’s implicit intent is acombination of habits, experiences, beliefs and values that reflect personal, military, culturaland national expectations.” They claim that implicit intent is also consistent with the conceptof tacit knowledge, “that is to say that we know more than we can say.” They expand theirdefinition of implicit intent into a Freudian psychoanalytic one, which is broader than the tacitknowledge concept, to include “deep beliefs based on religion, morals, and values that are toa large extent unconscious and pervasive.” 12IntentEXPLICITINTENTORDERSQUESTIONSANSWERSPUBLICLYCOMMUNICATEDIMPLICITINTENTPERSONALEXPECTATIONS(BASED ON STYLEAND EXPERIENCE)UNVOCALISEDANDUNVOCALISABLEMILITARY EXPECTATIONS(BASED ON TRAINING, DOCTRINE,TRADITION AND ETHOS)CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS(BASED ON SOCIETAL VALUES,CULTURAL MORALS, NATIONAL PRIDE)Figure 2: The Intent Hierarchy (McCann and Pigeau, 2000:166)9 Ibid.10 Liddy, L. (2005) ‘The Strategic Corporal: Some Requirements in Training and Education’, Australian Army Journal, Vol. 2 (online) (cited 29 October2008). Available from: http://www.defence.gov.au/army/AbstractsOnline/AAJournal/2005_A/AAJ_Autumn05_liddy_15.pdf11 Op Cit, p. 165.12 Ibid, p. 167.3